For Jane - John 1:13

[TheAnalogman]

John is contrasting the people of God under the "new" (this eschatological age) with those under the "old." Those under the old were marked by natural birth (and circumcision) as the children of Abraham. Their "birth" was physical. Their claim to fame was Abraham's blood which flowed through their veins. Those under Christ's new work are marked by the Spirit, which causes a new birth which is not of "natural descent/ of bloods" (from Abraham's line), from human decision (i.e., marriage) or a husband's will (sexual initiative). It was to those who believe that God gave the "right to be called sons of God." They had faith and then they received the Spirit and were "born from above."

Perhaps the explanation would be more acceptable if it came from a Calvinist. You can read Tenney or Carson, or any number of others. Here's Carson:

Quote:
...the Evangelist enlarges on this theme, showing that physical descent form Abraham is of no significance if one does not reproduce Abraham's faith....Spiritual birth is not the product of sexual desire, 'the will of the flesh,' here rendered 'of human decision'; it is certainly not the result of a husband's will (who is understood to take the lead in sexual matters).

I left out his comment on "of bloods," but it is the same as mine. Sex was seen as the mixing of "bloods."


From here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...15&postcount=6

[The Plain Jane]

John is contrasting the people of God under the "new" (this eschatological age) with those under the "old." Those under the old were marked by natural birth (and circumcision) as the children of Abraham. Their "birth" was physical. Their claim to fame was Abraham's blood which flowed through their veins. Those under Christ's new work are marked by the Spirit, which causes a new birth which is not of "natural descent/ of bloods" (from Abraham's line), from human decision (i.e., marriage) or a husband's will (sexual initiative). It was to those who believe that God gave the "right to be called sons of God." They had faith and then they received the Spirit and were "born from above."

Perhaps the explanation would be more acceptable if it came from a Calvinist. You can read Tenney or Carson, or any number of others. Here's Carson:

Quote:
...the Evangelist enlarges on this theme, showing that physical descent form Abraham is of no significance if one does not reproduce Abraham's faith....Spiritual birth is not the product of sexual desire, 'the will of the flesh,' here rendered 'of human decision'; it is certainly not the result of a husband's will (who is understood to take the lead in sexual matters).

I left out his comment on "of bloods," but it is the same as mine. Sex was seen as the mixing of "bloods."


From here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...15&postcount=6

Thanks thanks!

So when it says "nor of the will of man" it is talking about their belief that as Abraham's decendants they thought that in excising their will they could be saved?

I don't think I follow.

[TheAnalogman]

Thanks thanks!

So when it says "nor of the will of man" it is talking about their belief that as Abraham's decendants they thought that in excising their will they could be saved?

I don't think I follow.

No. The jews thought that just by being jewish (physical lineage from Abraham) and having the Law, that they were good to go. Read that whole thread. It's good. Will isn't the issue here.

[The Plain Jane]

No. The jews thought that just by being jewish (physical lineage from Abraham) and having the Law, that they were good to go. Read that whole thread. It's good. Will isn't the issue here.

The link you gave shows just one post.

[TheAnalogman]

The link you gave shows just one post.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=28683

[TheAnalogman]

[The Plain Jane]

Well, I'm not sure that John 1:13 is as defined in the OP, but now, I doubt it is defined as Lutherans define it.

[Reader]

John is contrasting the people of God under the "new" (this eschatological age) with those under the "old." Those under the old were marked by natural birth (and circumcision) as the children of Abraham. Their "birth" was physical. Their claim to fame was Abraham's blood which flowed through their veins. Those under Christ's new work are marked by the Spirit, which causes a new birth which is not of "natural descent/ of bloods" (from Abraham's line), from human decision (i.e., marriage) or a husband's will (sexual initiative). It was to those who believe that God gave the "right to be called sons of God." They had faith and then they received the Spirit and were "born from above."

Perhaps the explanation would be more acceptable if it came from a Calvinist. You can read Tenney or Carson, or any number of others. Here's Carson:

Quote:
...the Evangelist enlarges on this theme, showing that physical descent form Abraham is of no significance if one does not reproduce Abraham's faith....Spiritual birth is not the product of sexual desire, 'the will of the flesh,' here rendered 'of human decision'; it is certainly not the result of a husband's will (who is understood to take the lead in sexual matters).

I left out his comment on "of bloods," but it is the same as mine. Sex was seen as the mixing of "bloods."

This is really embarrassing!

John is not contrasting O.T. and N.T. people, but contrasting flesh with Spirit.

The Word of God clearly says men are not saved in the flesh, nor by the will of the flesh, but are saved "of God." . . . and you are trying to say this has to do with sex and procreation!

Nutty (and NPP stuff).

[themuzicman]

This is really embarrassing!

John is not contrasting O.T. and N.T. people, but contrasting flesh with Spirit.

The Word of God clearly says men are not saved in the flesh, nor by the will of the flesh, but are saved "of God." . . . and you are trying to say this has to do with sex and procreation!

Nutty (and NPP stuff).

John's audience is Jewish. They would certainly understand a denial of being "children of God" by the flesh or by the will of the flesh and a husband's will, since they were the people of God in the Old Covenant by natural birth, being corporate elected as a nation and descendants of Israel.

Michael

[Shazard]

They had faith and then they received the Spirit and were "born from above."

So actually what you say it WAS of will of some man they were born. So they choose to be born. Kind a funny stuff when you imagine how one spiritual beeing chooses to be born. It is like doing choice before you even exist. How something what does not exist (is not born or is dead) can choose to be born. Verse is exactly talking about opposites of natural birth from choice of others and spiritual birth which is choice of God. In both cases one who is being born has nothing to do with choosing to be born. Only after you are born you can reject the gift. In case of natural birth you can go and hang yourself, or in case of spiritual birth you can reject faith, choose to reject God. God didn't ask dust to be man, he just violently contradicting free will of dust made it into man.

[themuzicman]

So actually what you say it WAS of will of some man they were born. So they choose to be born. Kind a funny stuff when you imagine how one spiritual beeing chooses to be born. It is like doing choice before you even exist. How something what does not exist (is not born or is dead) can choose to be born. Verse is exactly talking about opposites of natural birth from choice of others and spiritual birth which is choice of God. In both cases one who is being born has nothing to do with choosing to be born. Only after you are born you can reject the gift. In case of natural birth you can go and hang yourself, or in case of spiritual birth you can reject faith, choose to reject God. God didn't ask dust to be man, he just violently contradicting free will of dust made it into man.

As per John 12, they chose to receive Christ, and accepted the right to become sons of God, by His will.

Michael

[Shazard]

John's audience is Jewish. They would certainly understand a denial of being "children of God" by the flesh or by the will of the flesh and a husband's will, since they were the people of God in the Old Covenant by natural birth, being corporate elected as a nation and descendants of Israel.

Michael

See again, you force your understanidng into verse where there is nothing to indicate your understanding. Why it is so hard for you to believe what is written without bending it? Why can't you bend yourself to fit the Word of God? And John's prologue is direct appeal to hellenists as he uses terms for hellenists not for jews (remember - Logos).

Everything fits if you know how to bend!

[Shazard]

As per John 12, they chose to receive Christ, and accepted the right to become sons of God, by His will.
Michael

No verse 12 talks about ones who recieved Christ. There is no indication why or by what exact process they recieved Christ. But when you read John more (say John 15:4) you understand why one can accept Jesus Christ. Because Jesus Christ first accepted them. WIthout Jesus Christ you can't do anything... and here is meant anything what is good in eyes of God.
God first loves you, God first accepts you and makes you able to accept him, as by nature every sinful men rejects God and hides from him.

[TheAnalogman]

So actually what you say it WAS of will of some man they were born. So they choose to be born. Kind a funny stuff when you imagine how one spiritual beeing chooses to be born. It is like doing choice before you even exist. How something what does not exist (is not born or is dead) can choose to be born. Verse is exactly talking about opposites of natural birth from choice of others and spiritual birth which is choice of God. In both cases one who is being born has nothing to do with choosing to be born. Only after you are born you can reject the gift. In case of natural birth you can go and hang yourself, or in case of spiritual birth you can reject faith, choose to reject God. God didn't ask dust to be man, he just violently contradicting free will of dust made it into man.

[themuzicman]

See again, you force your understanidng into verse where there is nothing to indicate your understanding. Why it is so hard for you to believe what is written without bending it? Why can't you bend yourself to fit the Word of God? And John's prologue is direct appeal to hellenists as he uses terms for hellenists not for jews (remember - Logos).

Everything fits if you know how to bend!

Go do some study on John. His audience is Jewish people who are being excommunicated from the synagogues, and must choose whether to embrace the Old Covenant, or Jesus Christ. John 20:31 says that John is writing so that they might believe that Jesus is the Christ. The references to Old Testament imagery and narrative throughout the book CLEARLY point to the audience being Jewish.

Furthermore, just before John 1:13 is John 1:12, which says that "those who received Him, He gave the right to become sons of God." Clearly the right to become comes before being born as one, so there is an action by men to receive CHrist and the right to become a son of God before it actually happens.

Sorry, but you're the one who is posting half sentences and then making claims while ignoring the rest of the sentence!

Michael